All may come! All may be saved!

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Nine

We learnt last time that the equality of human beings within a Christian worldview involves not only being created as special by God, in His image, but certain other things that are universally true of human beings. As human beings we are universally tainted by sin - we have a sinful nature. Our natural inclination is to sin and to be self-centred, rather than God-centred. And as universally sinful we are all headed towards a Judgment Day that will not go well for us, and we would all be sent to Hell without some intervention. The fact that we all die is one sign of that truth. Physical death in human beings would not have happened except as a consequence of sin. But we face the prospect of something much worse than death.

The good news is that Jesus Christ, God's own Son visible 2,000 years ago as a human being, died to take away sin and take away wrath. His death was the punishment for the sins of all those who believe in Him. He took our place. He suffered not just the physical agony of the crucifixion, preceded by the beatings, lashings, ridicule and betrayal. He suffered the separation from God that we deserve - on the cross He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) That was a reference to a psalm of the old scriptures, but it reflected what He was going through on the cross. He was put out of God's presence, away from everything good. In a very real way, He suffered hell for us.

But He didn't suffer hell forever, as we would. He rose from the dead, with a perfected body, to show that He has conquered sin and death and Hell. Instead of those bad things, we can look forward to also rising from the dead and having a perfected body. And on that day we will also see a perfected creation, what the Bible calls "the New Heaven and New Earth" (Revelation 21; see also 2 Peter 3:13).

And Jesus did that all for us, for whoever will put their trust in Him.

The offer is universal, to every single human being on the planet. We are all equally graciously offered eternal life, forgiveness of our sins, renewed access to God (the source of all good) forever.

Going back to Romans chapter 5, verses 6-11, "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

And later in verses 18-19, "just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

We are all sinners, we all deserve God's wrath, and we are all offered forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus Christ. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

The way that we get access to this free gift of eternal life is simply through repentance and faith (see Acts 3:19 and 16:31, for example).

Faith is believing not just the facts about Jesus, not just believing that the Bible is true. Faith is trusting in the person, Jesus Christ, that He has done the necessary work so that you can look forward to receiving the promised forgiveness and eternal life.

Repentance means you stop doing sinful things. It means you stop acting like you are the final authority, and you acknowledge that God is the final authority and you submit to His authority. You stop doing things because of your self-centred desires, and start doing things because you want to do what God wants.

Sometimes I feel like we ought to be specific occasionally. So, for instance, repentance means that if you are an abortionist, you give up your job killing babies. If you are a prostitute, you stop selling sex. If you engage in homosexual sex, you do so no longer. If you are sleeping with a person you are not married to, you stop. If you are violently aggressive, you become peaceful. If you are involved in fraud, you stop and be honest. If you are greedy and selfish, you start to be selfless and open. And I could go on…

Repentance means acknowledging the sins of the past as sins, and resolving never to return to them.

But it's also much more than specific lists of dos and don'ts. Repentance is about recognising that God is above all, and we should obey Him, and trust Him, and if that means giving up something that He says is sinful then we do it happily. Repentance means we no longer usurp God's authority in our own lives. We no longer act as if we are the final authority when it comes to right and wrong in our thoughts, words and deeds. We acknowledge God's final authority. And that is a fundamental shift in worldview. I hope that has become clear over the nine parts of this series so far.

Hence when Christians speak about morality, calling for purity and repentance, we do so from a standpoint of equality, not supposed superiority. We are not only equally created, but equally sinners, equally wrath-deserving and equally called to repentance and faith, equally offered forgiveness and eternal life.

Our view of ourselves should give us a humble attitude when we stand for God's morality, and maintain that abortion is wrong, pornography is wrong, etc, because we know that we are not superior in God's sight.

It is Jesus Christ alone who makes the difference.

The road to hell is wide

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Eight

To recap, I've been talking for a few months about morality and it's place in Christian thought. I've compared Christian rational foundations with non-religious foundations. Non-religious philosophies, I've argued, have no rational basis for morality. They want to say some things are right and some things are wrong. They even sometimes treat Christians as if we are evil because we transgress their rule that no-one is allowed to question their authority! But because they have only themselves to turn to for authority, because their fundamental belief is that humans are no more special than rocks, apes, dolphins or roses, because they can't define anything objectively, their rules reduce to arbitrary preferences that they try to enforce on everyone else.

In the last couple of articles I've tried to show the foundations that Christians have for morality in more detail. Our responsibility is to God, because He created human beings to have a special relationship with Him. We are created equal. But because of the sin of Adam and Eve, the first human beings, every descendent has been tainted with self-centred, God-rejecting, sinfulness. And out of that sinful, self-centred heart comes immorality and sin. Human beings are equally sinners.

The consequences for sin are the same for every human being too.

Since all sin is an expression of a rejection of God's authority, He is perfectly justified to be filled with wrath and anger and indignation. The Bible warns us that we will all one day face God's judgment, and our sinful rejection of God's authority will be punished forever. Frankly, we deserve Hell.

People baulk at the idea of Hell, but if we only understood the nature and perfection of God we would see that it is the only punishment possible. God is perfect, and the source of everything good - love, joy, peace, perfection. To be cut off from God is to be cut off from the source of everything good, and therefore to suffer everything bad for the rest of eternity. Those who reject God's authority, because they would rather go their own way, want to enjoy the good things that come from God - beauty, love, joy, peace, power - but they refuse to submit to Him. God only allows that situation temporarily in "this life" - up to 80 years or so nowadays. When the Judgment Day comes, those who reject God's authority, evidenced by their sin (using the good things God has made and given to them for their own selfish ends, rather than for the purpose He gave them), will be given what their actions deserve - to be cut off from God forever, and therefore sent to an eternity without access to anything good, sent to Hell.

"It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment…" (Hebrews 9:27)

"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." (Ephesians 5:5-6)

"… following the course of this world… among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind..." (Ephesians 2:2-4)

We may not all be equally sinful, but we are equally sinners and therefore equally deserve God's wrath and the eternal punishment in Hell that comes with that.

I'm going to publish the next chapter soon, but I do want to give you chance to dwell on this for a little while. In fact, if you are reading this retrospectively (in other words, you are picking up the series after the series has been completely published) then I'd encourage you to pause here and reflect.

This is not popular stuff, but it is reality. It's not just idle talk, it's not simply for lecture theatres, pulpits and blogs. It's not simply "very interesting stuff". It's about our eternal destiny. It's what will really happen in history because of what our real actions have been based on. And that's why it's important, as Christians, that we don't shirk from talking about it, unpleasant though it is.

I once talked to one of my housemates at university about the gospel, and tried to do so as sensitively as possible. At one stage, though, he asked me outright, "so you believe I'm heading to hell?" I said quietly, "Yes, I do." And he walked out of the room, and didn't speak to me again… ever. He avoided me until the end of the summer term, and that was his final year. I have not seen him or heard from him since that day in 1991.

In the film The Day After Tomorrow, one scene always strikes me. The film is a disaster movie, about how a particular combination of weather events conspire to bring about extreme weather across the whole world, leaving half the USA under snow and ice. Dennis Quaid plays the heroic scientist (Jack Hall) who predicts the events, and then has to go and find his son, Sam, who is trapped in the ice in New York. Having managed a brief conversation on the phone with his father, Sam knows that the best chance for the group of survivors he is huddled with in the New York Public Library is to stay indoors. If they go outside they may get caught in the huge freezing cyclones that are moving over the world, and they will freeze to death in seconds. At one stage the survivors in the library get impatient and talk of moving on to find better shelter. Sam pleads with them not to, telling them what his father has told him. He knows that by going outside they will die, and he tries to warn them. Some of the group simply ignore Sam, some argue with him and tell him to be quiet. Even when he explains that his dad is a climatologist and knows what is happening, and that he has just spoken to him, they still refuse to listen. All except a couple of the group go outside. Jack discovers their frozen bodies as he treks north through the snow to try to rescue Sam and his friends.

It strikes me that this is like the way Christians are treated when we try to warn about hell, eternal punishment. What we are doing is warning, because we have been told by our Father, that a big storm is coming - a Day of Judgment. Yet we are ignored, marginalised, mocked and sometimes shouted down for doing so.

The worst outcome can be avoided by listening to the Son. Jesus.

If you are not a Christian, don't, whatever you do, exit this series at this point. There is good news to come.

Nobody's perfect

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Seven

 

When we say, "nobody's perfect!" we are normally trying to find an excuse for something we have done wrong. But at the same time we all know that it's true. We know that we have faults as individuals, and we know that everyone has different faults. We disappoint ourselves with the mess we make sometimes, and others disappoint us too.

The Bible gives the reason that this is universally true and not just an exasperated exaggeration. We sin because we are sinful, not the other way around. We are not made sinful by the sins we commit. We commit sins because we are already sinful. Human nature is corrupt and therefore we all tend to do things that are wrong. Of course, it is also true that our sins tend to further corrupt us and that we can wreck our lives by getting into sinful habits. But my point is that none of us can escape sin. Our nature is corrupt.

It all stems from Adam and Eve, the original human beings. They disobeyed God, and were punished, and their condemnation comes down on the whole of the human race (read more in Genesis chapter 3). This is taught most clearly in Romans 5:12-21. Paul says, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [i.e. Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - for sin was indeed in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam…" In other words, since death was the consequence of sin, sin must have been universal in the world from Adam onwards, even though the Ten Commandments and written law of God were not given until thousands of years later. Sin is still sin even if it does not arise from transgressing an explicit command (like the transgression of Adam).

Paul continues, "… many died through one man's trespass… the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation… because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man… as one trespass led to condemnation for all men… by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners."

Because of this, as Paul says earlier in the letter to the Romans, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

So when Christians talk about equality of human beings, we are not just talking about being equally created - created equal and being equally responsible. We also mean that we are equally sinners.

This can seem harsh, because we have to say in all honesty that no-one in the whole world, except for Jesus Christ, is or has been perfect. And God's standards are perfect, because they arise out of His own perfections. God's purpose in creating the universe was to show His power, wisdom, beauty, perfection and love. But rather than following His purpose we have gone our own way. Adam and Eve's sin was not fundamentally about a piece of fruit. It was about seeking their own pleasure and trying to set their own direction, rather than following that of their Creator.

There are obviously specific rules which people trip over - whether that be lying, gossiping, cheating, having an affair with a married man, getting unnecessarily angry, killing an unborn baby, assisting an old or disabled person to commit suicide or offending people with the language you use. But these outward actions occur because they spring from a sinful heart - a heart that is basically selfish and self-centred and does not love God above everything. And everyone has a sinful, selfish, self-centred heart. If we were honest we would acknowledge that. The foundation of all that we do is actually our own pleasure, and not the pleasure of God. But that's the reason why we say that we are all equally sinners, even if some don't exhibit obvious outward sins. Nice people are sinners too!

That's something that some non-religious people also need to take note of when they accuse Christians of victimising them for their sins. And it is something that Christians need to be better at articulating. Nice people are sinners too! It is not just murderers, not just fraudsters, drug dealers and rapists. Respectable people are sinners too, because at their core they are self-centred and refuse to acknowledge God or follow His purposes and His rules.

In fact, let's be explicit. Christians are sinners too. A lot of people who are not Christians think they are giving a great rebuttal when they point to our flaws, failings and sins. But far from disproving our gospel it actually emphasises the point! We know we are sinful. We know we are internally corrupt. We are human and therefore that's what we are. We are ashamed of it, we don't like it, we pray for the strength to be less so. But we are equally sinners along with the rest of humanity.

Note that I didn't say we are all equally sinful - some sins are worse than others, as defined by God's law; and some people, therefore, sin more than others (more frequently, more seriously, more brazenly). Some people are more sinful than others. But we are all equally sinners - we are all sinful.

If you are not a Christian this may leave you wondering why morality matters so much if every person who has ever lived (apart from Jesus) has been brought down by it. But this is the road that you must travel in order to understand Christianity. It will take another two or three chapters to fully explain this.

How to enjoy Christmas

I was walking back from the office to where my car was parked in a side road one evening a couple of weeks ago. It was 5:15pm, cold, dark and crisp. It was early December, and one of the local residents had newly decorated the outside of their house with Christmas lights. Pulsing, multi-coloured chains. A reindeer running. A glowing, sparkling snowman, with a glowing, sparkling polar bear. I smiled as I walked past, glowing with the prettiness and the fun of it, picturing the smiles on the kids' faces.

And I got thinking of the excitement of my own kids as they look forward to Christmas, the fun and enjoyment they have from having presents, the fun they had decorating the tree, the way they all still enjoy opening the doors on their Advent calendars every day. And I thought of the candlelight carols, the Christmas crackers and mince pies with family that we spend far too little time with at other times of year.

Christmas is a time of joy.

Before I started writing this I had in mind to write about all the things I dislike about Christmas. For one thing, I was taken seriously ill on Christmas Day 2009 and I've been made redundant three times - all of them just before Christmas. But that's not important. I was going to complain about the commercialisation, the materialism, the overspending. I was going to bemoan the way that we exalt lie of Santa above the truth of Jesus. Jesus is, after all, the 'reason for the season'. I was going to ask why we celebrate the humble coming of the Son of God with glitz, glamour and excess, why we celebrate the coming of the sin-bearer with drunken parties and greed.

Don't get me wrong. Those issues are important and they are worth talking about. But it's the joy of Christmas that I have found myself reflecting on.

Joy is good. We were made for joy, not for hate, anger, despair or bitterness. God wants us to be happy.

From one point of view the source of our joy is morally limited. For example, if we get enjoyment from killing people, that's wrong; if we get enjoyment from sexual immorality, that's wrong; if our enjoyment comes from stealing, that's wrong; and so on.

But is the enjoyment of innocent things always right? That would be part of the response if I were to criticise the Santa cult. "It's just a bit of harmless fun!" (There's the 'no harm principle' I was talking about in "Whose Rules Rule (Part 5). Allegedly, if it does no harm it must be right.) How can we criticise fairy lights or tinsel? There is surely nothing wrong, per se, with parties, with alcohol, with glamour, gifts, trees and decorations, snowmen, and even myths of a red-velvet-clad-bearded-bloke and reindeers.

The answer is that it depends on our attitude to these things. We were made to glorify God by finding our joy in Him. One way of doing that is when we respond with joy, amazement, wonder at the beauty of creation, we are supposed to complete the thought with, "Thank you, Father". When we feel loved by, and love for, family and friends, we are sharing an emotion that God had first - first within Himself, between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then shared with His human children. We were made for joy - not any joy, but a joy that explicitly exults in God.

So if I love the nature programmes on TV, I must realise that God made those wonderful creatures for us, so that we would marvel at how wonderful, great, wise and gracious He is.

If I love competing and doing sport, I must realise that God gave me skills and talents, and that these are a microreflection of God's skill, wisdom and power.

If I love a good book, or a nice car, music, drama, movies or paintings, I must realise that God gave human beings creativity, imagination, and aesthetic appreciation, so that we would be like Him who created the universe from His own perfect design, and so that we would see the designer and creator behind everything.

When I love another person so much I want to spend the rest of my life with them, I must realise that Jesus feels much greater love for His people, the church, and that "We love because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19)

When I love my children more than anything in the whole world, I must realise that this is only a pale shadow of the love my Heavenly Father has for me.

And God's love is exactly what is supposed to be in view when we celebrate Christmas. "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

When we think of the sin that cuts us off from God, the source of life and everything good - our sin - we know we are powerless to save ourselves. There is nothing we can do for ourselves to take away our sin or to make God think differently about it. So when the angel said to the shepherds, "I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people," (Luke 2:10) he was not exaggerating.

It really is good news of great joy that the eternal Son of God should put off His eternal glory and take on Himself our weak human flesh in order to die for us on the cross. "Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord," the angel said (v11). Another angel had said to Joseph, "you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

The coming of Jesus Christ into the world is a cause for celebration. In fact it's the biggest cause for celebration the world has ever known! The only bigger event to celebrate will be when He returns to bring a complete end to this broken world and bring in the new and perfect world. To say that Jesus Christ is worth celebrating would be a massive understatement!

The travesty of Christmas is when we have so much enjoyment of the celebration that we forget that we are celebrating God's grace towards us. But that's the travesty of life in general - when we get so caught up in the world, good and bad, that we forget/refuse to worship the God who is in charge of it all, and we fail to accept His offer of forgiveness through faith in Jesus.

So as we do all our celebrating this Christmas, as we smile at the pretty lights in the winter darkness, as we share the thrills of the children as they open their presents, as we stuff our faces with lovely food (and maybe the odd glass of wine), as we relax with friends and family - let's not forget the reason why Christmas is so worth celebrating. Let's keep the joy of Christmas and praise God!

'O Come, let us adore Him, Christ the Lord!'

Merry Christmas, everybody!

It's good to be human

Whose Rules Rule - Part Six

In order to start to sketch out Christian moral foundations we need to understand that the way Christians talk about equality is different to the way modern secular atheists talk about it. That's because secular atheists can often appeal to equality as the fundamental truth on which to base moral principles (which, as we've seen, is in itself quite an arbitrary appeal). We also need to contrast the Christian view of the origin and purpose of human beings with non-religious views. 

As I have already implied, I believe that when non-religious people talk about equality they include some notion of all humans equally having the right/authority to work out their own morality. For them the equality of human beings really stems from having the same origin. Logically that also puts us equal with animals, rocks and plants, and therefore it means that we have the same rights and responsibilities with regard to morality as animals, rocks and plants. Nothing in their assumptions necessarily leads to there being natural distinctions between things. There is no logic to it. But in an attempt to find meaning, arbitrarily, they distinguish between things (e.g. coal, water, air), living things (e.g. fish, birds, animals, flowers), and intelligent living things (human beings). Non-living things tend to just follow the laws of physics and chemistry. Non-intelligent living things tend to just follow the instincts of their species. But as intelligent living things we humans are characterised by a conscious struggle, according to the secular atheist or non-religious Westerner - the struggle for meaning and to "find our place in the universe". That struggle includes the struggle to work out right and wrong, but since we are equal we all have equal rights to find the answer for ourselves. 

For the Christian, equality also starts from equality of origin, but to fully appreciate the Christian's moral framework we have to also appreciate other levels of equality. Human beings are equally created, but also equally sinners, equally deserving of eternal punishment, equally called to repentance and faith, and equally offered grace to eternal life. We'll look at some of these in later parts of this series. For now let's think about our place in God's creation. 

Since God created everything, all of creation owes its existence to Him and its allegiance to Him. The Bible teaches that the human race was specially created to manage the rest of creation for God. Human beings were created "in the image of God". God defined the distinctions between things, living things, intelligent living things and human intelligent living things. Humans were created with the extraordinary and special capacity to relate directly to Him, the need to relate to Him. And we all - every single human on earth - trace our ancestry to the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. (Incidentally, this does leave open the possibility that we may find other non-humans that show intelligence. Intelligence does not define our special relationship with God. Our humanness does.) Nothing else in the material universe was given the same direct relationship with our Creator - no animal, no bird, no fish or tree. 

Before God, humans have special responsibilities that come with those extraordinary capacities. But under Him we are all morally equal, equally responsible. But note: we are responsible to God, not under our own authority. 

What this means is that when Christians talk about morality, we seek to reiterate God's standards and apply them to particular behaviours and contexts. And as we reiterate God's standards, we do it for ourselves too, as fellow human beings. If abortion is wrong, then it is wrong for me too. If sex outside monogamous heterosexual marriage is wrong, then it is wrong for me too. I am not at liberty to re-engineer morality, since God has hard-wired it into the universe. 

We're all equally judged by God's standards, which are the same for all human beings. So when a Christian makes a moral statement about whether something is right or wrong, that statement does not automatically include within it a moral judgment that puts the Christian above anyone else. This is key for non-religious people to understand, because their moral judgments do involve seeing themselves as better than others because their morals are based on themselves as final authority. So when a Christian makes a moral statement they are saying something objective and factual. When a non-religious person makes a moral statement they are saying something subjective and comparative. This actually makes it possible for a Christian to be hypocritical and still make moral statements that are no less true. And as we'll see next time there is a sense in which Christians are all hypocritical, but that doesn't invalidate what we say about right and wrong, so long as what we say is in line with God's Word. 

But we also need to emphasise to people that God created human beings for a purpose. He did not just make a man and woman and say, "ok off you go and have a play, and I'll check in on you from time to time!" He gave us a purpose and a job to do - "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28) He also said that we have to do that in a way that honours Him by obeying Him. The command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) was God's way of saying that this world is His and we are not allowed just to do whatever we want. 

We are not meaningless blobs, we were not just created and left lost in a big universe. We are the special creation of an All-powerful Creator, with a special job to do, to manage the world in the way that He tells us to. 

In fact what I've said so far doesn't really do justice to God's purpose for us. The Bible consistently talks about God having a loving purpose for us. He calls us His children. He didn't create human beings and then leave us to do whatever we want in the universe while He went off to do something else. Nor did He create human beings and then leave us a job to do while He went off to do something else. 

God created human beings to work with Him. We have a whole universe to discover, and it's as if He's like an excited Father watching His children learn new and wonderful things, discovering amazing things He made for us. He made us for that relationship. When we discover something new and wonderful, He wants to hear us say in effect, "Wow! Thanks Dad! How did you do that? That's amazing!" (I hope I'm not being irreverent in putting it like that.) He made us to love His power and wisdom. He made us to love Him. And He is alongside us in every step we take. We humans are special to Him. 

So whilst it is right to think of God as Judge, because the Bible speaks of Him as Judge, we ought not to think of that role as an impersonal one. It is very personal. When we refuse to follow His instructions in the way we conduct ourselves in the world we are acting like delinquent, rebellious children. Everything we have is from Him (whether material possessions or intellect and wisdom or power) and yet we use those very things to shut Him out. We are selfish. We think life is all about us. But it's not. God is ultimate. Everything in the universe comes from Him and is for Him. So when we are out of step with God, disobeying His rules, we are out of step with the whole purpose of the universe. 

In conclusion, non-religious views of morality are based on arbitrary foundations, because their assertions regarding the distinctiveness and equality of human beings have no foundation. In contrast, Christian morality is based on God's creation of human beings as special, to relate to Him and go with Him throughout the world to discover His wisdom and power and glory through everything He has created. As it has often been said, Christian morality is all about "following the Maker's instructions". And the equality of all human beings is firmly based on that purpose and special creation, giving God's rules a firm rational ground. 

But there are other things that apply universally to all human beings, and therefore reinforce the equality of all humanity. And we'll look at those in the next few pieces.

No harm done?

Whose Rules Rule - Part Five

If I were to say to a couple who were sexually active with each other outside of a heterosexual marriage (to each other!) that their sexual activity is wrong or sinful, I guess their response would probably be, "why is it wrong? What harm is it doing to anyone?" It's a response that would reveal one of the principles often given for non-religious moral standards. Since non-religious people have no absolutely infallible reference point (like the one Christians have from God via the Bible) they have to choose their own principles. One such principle used in civilised cultures (I would say those that have been historically influenced by Christianity) is that we can do many things, but we must not harm other people. 

Of course, history is full of examples of where people have not used that principle. Hitler and Stalin obviously thought it was ok to inflict a great deal of suffering on a huge number of people. However, this only demonstrates how arbitrary these principles are when they have no absolute and objective reference point. When a higher principle is developed, for example, from the philosophies of Marx or Nietzsche, for the positive evolution of the human race (i.e. involving the elimination of those who are substandard), the 'no harm' principle gets an exclusion clause. And the recent English city riots and looting demonstrates that the 'no harm' principle is being gradually ditched, because it is arbitrarily restrictive, and replaced in many people by the 'if it feels good do it' principle.

I am also aware that some of those who have called themselves Christians in the past - e.g. the Crusaders or the Roman Catholic church with the Spanish Inquisition - have not lived up to the teachings of their Lord when they have caused suffering to their opponents. Atheists are quick to point this out and even grossly generalise by saying that all wars are caused by religion. However, my point in this introduction is not to say that Christians are morally better than atheists. We are no less sinners. Neither do I want to get into historical debates over which philosophies gave rise to which wars. 

My point is simply that it is very common in today's Western cultures to say that our guiding moral principle should be that anything is ok if it does not harm others. The point of mentioning Hitler and Stalin was only to reinforce what I've said in an earlier article, that moral standards without God are necessarily arbitrary. I am simply choosing for examination a foundation principle that is often held by non-religious people who want to portray themselves as respectable and civilised.

So let's look at this 'no harm' principle. First of all, some people may question why I say that the principle is arbitrary. A rule is arbitrary if it has no logical basis or deduction - it cannot be deduced logically from true statements or facts. For example, parents are sometimes arbitrary when our children ask, "why do I have to do tidy my room?" and we answer, "Because I say so!" If something is only so because I say so, then that is arbitrary. My earlier articles have tried to show that all moral standards that are not based on God's revelation of right and wrong, good and evil, are automatically arbitrary. They are subjective, as no-one can argue with someone else that one moral statement is right and another is wrong.

So we should ask from a non-religious perspective why it would be wrong to harm someone? Having asked this several times in real life, my experience is that the answer from the non-religious person is always something like, "well it's obvious that you shouldn't hurt someone". But I don't have to accept that it is obvious. As I mentioned above, there are many examples of people who don't see that as obvious - people that the majority of civilised human beings frown upon or see as evil. Most people do not see Hitler or Stalin as simply having different philosophies. They see them as evil. But how would our civilised non-religious friends reason with someone who shared the same views as Hitler or Stalin? How would they argue that human beings should not inflict harm on each other? They have no basis. In practice, because they have no basis, they don't try to reason. They resort to dehumanising people less civilised than themselves - so the likes of Hitler and Stalin are called madmen or monsters. The rioters of summer 2011 were called 'feral rats' and 'scum'. The cannibals of the jungle are patronisingly called 'primitive' (they don't know any better).

The non-religious person has no basis for the 'no harm' principle because this principle conflicts with their other basic assumptions. As I have highlighted in earlier articles, their basic assumptions about the origins of life lead them to believe that human beings are not set apart from other animals or even other things that exist. So why should we be upset about human beings - just one type of meaningless formation of molecules amongst millions - being harmed? And on the other hand, why should human beings be the only species or entity with their own moral code? Animals base their behaviour on fear and strength and class distinctions, rather than right and wrong. Why shouldn't human beings? And if the response is simply that intellect, self-awareness and morality is just the particular way that human beings have evolved as distinct from other species, then intellect, self-awareness and morality are meaningless distinctions. On that basis one person's morality based on not doing people harm is as good as another person's morality based on using other people for their own pleasure.

But let's also ask the question, what is harm? We could say that harm is an action performed on an entity that detracts from the quality, pleasure or good feeling of that entity. So the countryside can be harmed by leaving litter, because it detracts from the quality of the countryside. A person can be harmed physically, financially or emotionally by attacking their body, taking their possessions or by threatening their safety or security or pleasure.

But what defines quality in a universe where one formation of atoms is no more meaningful than any other? We could just as well say that quality is something esoteric that evokes pleasure in human beings. It's something we sense.

But then what defines pleasure? Has pleasure any meaning? Isn't pleasure just a release of endorphins in the human body, caused by certain predictable triggers? Is pleasure any more meaningful than something that gives human beings a will to survive?

And what if one person's pleasure is limited by another person's pleasure? Relationships are a good example. If your relationship with your boyfriend or girlfriend (pre-marriage) is not making you happy, or you can be happier with someone else, should you end the relationship or continue? Your boyfriend or girlfriend may be upset (reduced pleasure - i.e. harm) if you end it, so that your increased pleasure results in their reduced pleasure. Would it be wrong to end the relationship?

And if the response is that this is a trivial example, because hurt feelings don't count, then why do we have a concept of 'psychological abuse' or bullying? Sometimes a domineering husband or wife may not physically hurt their spouse, but they inflict psychological damage by the way that they speak or act. And in the school playground a big kid may not actually physically hurt others, but may hurt someone's feelings by their threatening or manipulative behaviour. Why would this be wrong if hurt feelings are trivial?

And why is it ok to harm criminals? Some would say it's not ok, on the 'no harm' moral principle. That's why many psychologists and politicians refuse to talk about punishment. If we don't like someone's behaviour to the extent that we call it criminal then we try first to 'rehabilitate' them (i.e. persuade them to live by the moral standards of the majority), then if they won't be rehabilitated they are restricted. Prison becomes something that protects civilised society, rather than something that punishes criminals. 

There are many many more avenues we could explore to show that the foundations of any morality without God are arbitrary, subjective and meaningless. We simply have to keep asking for definitions, asking why and pointing to the inconsistencies.

In the end we all basically know what harm is, what pleasure is, what quality is. The point is that non-religious people have no rational basis for these definitions. They simply feel what is right and wrong. But as Christians we know that people know these things because we are all created by God, in His image. God gives meaning to everything and is the foundation of truth and knowledge. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we cannot change the fact that we are God's special creation. And as such we are made to think in terms of right and wrong, truth, emotion, pleasure, and such like. And therefore it is no surprise that all these things only make sense in a Christian worldview. But if non-religious people try to do without God and still have right and wrong, truth, pleasure, emotion, etc, they find they end in meaninglessness, irrationality and emptiness.

Next I want, God-willing, to look at the foundations of Christian morality, where it comes from, why it is a positive thing, and how it works. This will take another few articles.

Why should we care about morality?

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Four

I've been writing recently about morality, and comparing non-religious concepts with the Christian source of morality. I am writing this series of articles for two reasons. Firstly, I have noticed the apparent paradox whereby many non-religious people, who seem to have strong moral repulsion to awful acts such as rioting, looting from shops or child abuse, also have a strong dislike of Christian morality. So I’m trying to point out why this is, and why Christian moral standards have much more in their favour than people think, even if they don’t like living by those standards. 

Secondly, Christians, influenced by the pressure from the prevailing philosophy of our culture (thrust at us through every channel available – billboards, tv, newspapers, magazines, internet) have become timid in our reasoning about morality. That’s a big problem in our presentation of the gospel, the core of our faith, and the good news we have for the world. You see, without a conviction of sin, the news of salvation from sin makes no sense. My perception is that much of our evangelism makes no sense to the non-religious people who make up the majority of our population in the West, and it makes no sense because we do not challenge their faulty concept of sin.

Of course, this should not be any surprise to us, and it isn’t just that the non-religious have a faulty concept of sin. They also have a faulty concept of God, humanity, knowledge, science, and just about everything else. It shouldn’t be a surprise because the Bible tells us that in order to see the kingdom of God we have to be born again of the Spirit (John 3:3-5) – i.e. it is impossible without God’s spiritual intervention.

However, every age and every philosophy and every false religion have their own major blind spots and points where they diverge from the truth. It has been noted by evangelical commentators for many years that as generations through to 20th and 21st Centuries have passed, the influence of our Christian heritage and institutions has become less and less (see, for example, Telling the Truth, D.A. Carson (ed); The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, John Piper and Justin Taylor (eds); Above all Earthly Powers, David Wells; The Gagging of God, D.A. Carson). Whereas 60 years ago, when Christian assumptions were still influential, an evangelist could speak of the sinfulness of people and be more or less understood, that is not the case now in an age where Christian assumptions and beliefs have been largely rejected.

My conviction is that this is no reason to minimise talk of sin in our gospel presentations, and indeed our day-to-day conversation (which is what leads to personal evangelistic opportunities). It is instead time to recognise the need to press deeper into our culture’s philosophy. When we present the gospel, at almost every point we will meet with challenges and misunderstanding. And therefore the work of apologetics – answering objections – is now a more important discipline than ever, and something that all Christians should become proficient in.

So part of my purpose in writing these articles is to attempt to work through how we should, as Christians, talk about sin and morality. How can we engage with the culture in which we live in a way that not only tries to democratically prevent further descent into God-dishonouring behaviour, but also forces debate that allows us an entrance to share the gospel. After all, it is not politics but only the gospel that is the “power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16).

What our non-religious friends and neighbours need to see is that Christian talk about sin and morality, even in politics, is in actual fact our way of being kind to them. We want them to know what sin is, acknowledge it as sin in their lives, and have the opportunity to turn from it, and in turning from it and turning to Christ receive salvation. The church needs to have this explicitly in our rhetoric when debating in forums such as the Church of England’s General Synod (though I acknowledge that the media often portrays even the most loving rhetoric as hateful). 

I have to admit to being more than a little concerned when I hear the language of outrage being used by Christian preachers and politicians speaking about homosexuality and abortion. The very fact that the worldly counter-rhetoric speaks in terms of phobias and religious hatred may partly indicate that we are not communicating in the right language. We are being misunderstood. I admit also that part of this misunderstanding is deliberate prevarication by the liberal intelligentsia and media in an effort to avoid the truth, but at least we ought to take care in the words we use.

At the same time I firmly believe that Christians ought not to stop talking about sin, specifically and generally. And should not pull punches when it comes to talking about its seriousness and serious consequences. We should not expect necessarily to remain friends or to be popular when we tell the truth about sin and morality. However, we should only fall out for the right reasons – because of the truth and not the harshness of the way we present the truth. “In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1 Peter 3:15-16)

So far, I’ve outlined the following:

• That non-religious people have moral standards, but the source of their morality is themselves. This is the reason why they get upset when Christians say that some actions are sinful that they do not think there is anything wrong with – even if they do not do these things themselves. They take it personally.
• That non-religious moral systems are therefore necessarily subjective, and have no objective basis. The logic of this is anarchy, unless sufficient common ground can be found to keep the peace in a democratic society.
• That non-religious assumptions either devalue humanity and make even their own moral standards pointless, or reduce to arbitrary emotional biases. Both situations militate against a peaceful and orderly society.

To summarise: non-religious people, even though their basic assumptions about life and the universe give them nothing on which to base moral standards and care for others, still get upset about the brutal killing of a child, the famine victims and AIDS victims of Africa, or terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. This seems illogical, but it actually isn’t when you take into account that they see themselves arbitrarily as the final authority in matters of right and wrong. If something makes them feel bad, then it they define it as bad. As someone has said, non-religious morality is based entirely on “the yuck factor”.

In future articles I hope to probe other areas that demonstrate the emptiness of postmodern thinking about morality compared to the robust rationality and cogency of Christianity. I also hope to demonstrate further how Christians can talk about morality in clearly loving ways.